The Second Amendment provides for a "well regulated" militia.
No, the second amendment provides for the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It does not limit that right to militia members, even though it could easily have done so by actually saying just that.
Once this is government mandated, you will have to carry this with you - just like having plates, registration and proof of insurance. If they stop you, and you don't have it, they will fine/impound you.
What's more likely is a dual-tax system until the old cars die and are replaced by cars with mandatory GPS tracking units. When you go to the pump, if your car doesn't have a GPS unit, you pay the normal road use taxes in the fuel charges. If you have a GPS, your data is uploaded and your tax is computed and added to a tax-less fuel price. That's what the Oregon DOT was floating as the means of changeover.
In fact, I can even imagine that the tax for non-GPS users goes up to the point that the price of fuel for them becomes in incentive to install the tracking device, just like in a few years the price for car insurance will go up for people who aren't installing the "snapshot" devices to the point that most people will do it. Just like health insurance companies that used to offer a small discount to people who do "healthy" things are now charging a surcharge to people who don't "voluntarily" participate in those "healthy things" programs. Like Oregon's PEBB insurance programs, where people who don't agree to stop smoking pay a surcharge, or people who don't "volunteer" to participate in the "health engagement model" (HEM) pay more. Agree to tell them your waist size and take two online health management courses and you pay less than those who don't.
What's funny about that latter program is that the courses are naturally privacy invasive. "Tell us about your XYZ condition..." they say. There is a "no" option. "Ok, we can't teach you much about this because you aren't willing to share. Bye...". But you still get credit for the course. Makes taking the courses really easy, but almost useless. Almost as useless as the one I did answer stuff regarding depression, the suggestions from which could be summed up as "be happier, do happier things". Thanks. Didn't think of that.
You're not reading that correctly. Not a single place in the fucking article does he say "the price was correct".
It says that in the summary, which both you and I quoted. If it wasn't correct in the summary, perhaps that should have been what you said instead of simply repeating it with an emphasis on an irrelevant part. I emphasized the part about it being correct, but instead of saying it wasn't, you emphasized the units, as if that mattered. It's like saying that it would be a lie to buy a 4mm screw but say I bought a 0.004m screw. The statement is correct ("the price was correct") but the units are different. So what if the units are different? Since you didn't contest the part about the price being correct, I assumed it was.
They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. They DID NOT CONVERT IT.
Then they did not copy the price. The price includes units. Saying they copied the price but changed the currency to USD implies that they CONVERTED IT. But here you're telling me they copied the price again, when the truth apparently is they didn't. Writing '4mm' and '4m' is not copying the size of the screw, it's changing the size of the screw. Nobody I know would call one a copy of the other. Everyone I know would consider it to be copying the measurement if they wrote '0.004m' in place of '4mm'. Maybe it's because I know that the units are a mandatory part of every measurement and some people think all that matters is the digits.
No they goddamn didn't. They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. I feel like I'm arguing with a brick. This is not fucking rocket surgery.
I'm sorry that you feel the need for profanity instead of simply pointing out that the summary was incorrect the first time. It's not rocket surgery to say "if I quote something I know is wrong, I'll point out that it is wrong", either. What would you call it when you argue with someone who repeatedly quotes things that he knows are untrue and says nothing about them being untrue, despite multiple chances?
Driver A drives mostly to and from work, using major roads during rush hours, helping stress the road system and create a demand for increased capacity.
Driver B drives mostly around the farm, but goes into town to pick up things from time to time. He uses mostly private roads, or small country roads that are lightly used at most.
They both drive the same number of miles, but one of them puts much more of a demand upon the road system and costs more to support. How will this difference "come out in the wash"? Consider that driver B already files a farm use exemption so he gets a lot of his gas tax money back, but under a flat "use the odometer" option he pays the same amount as Driver A. His taxes go way up, his road usage does not.
Tax cars based on the number of miles driven. Yes, some of your miles will be spent outside your state,
Or on private roads/farms. Some vehicles almost never leave a farm, but they rack up miles of use anyway.
How do you determine miles driven? Mandatory vehicle inspections? Sure.
then if another state near you does GPS, in the best case, you'll get extra cash when their drivers cross the line,
Where do you come up with this whopper from? You expect other states to collect road taxes on your state's behalf? They get to spend the money doing the collection just to hand money over to your state? Sure. Just like sales taxes someone pays in another state are tallied up and sent to the state of residence... not.
And if the vehicle is a hybrid, you could allow drivers to submit gas station receipts from other states to buy down the miles based on the fact that they already paid a gas tax in another state.
Thus creating a paperwork nightmare for both the consumer and the government. Also a giant loophole for anyone who lives near a border. They cross the border every time to fill up, but they spend most of their miles on their home state roads.
Such a solution is by far the most sane, as it has minimal impact on gasoline-based driving, while creating a much simpler, less invasive, and more easily managed scheme for electric-based driving.
Really? You think having people keep track of paper receipts and filing extra paperwork, along with mandatory visual inspection of every vehicle's milage, is simpler and more easily managed than a simple device in every car that is pinged by a radio system to report time/location data logged by a computer? The initial concept in Oregon was that this data would be uploaded every time you stopped to buy gas. All-electric vehicles need to recharge, so having an upload at each recharge is their answer.
Plus the advantage that GPS tracking allows use of the road tax as a social engineering tool, coercing people to drive during off-peak hours or non-main routes. That saves money by not having to expand infrastructure to deal with peak loads and makes people feel good about "being green" (and we all know that feeling good about being green is much more important than really being green...).
The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars.
The only reason the currency matters is because it was on a US customs form where prices are supposed to be in USD. It doesn't matter if he paid in CDN and the form showed USD, the important clause there is "the price was correct". If they hadn't converted correctly then the price would not be correct. Since the price was correct, the form wasn't a lie.
If you're trying to parse that statement as the price was correct but the units were wrong, then you have this problem: a price includes the "units of measure". If you say "the price of the boat was 10,000", you're not making a complete statement. "10,000" what? If you say in one place that the price was 10,000CDN and in another 10,000USD, then the PRICE IS NOT CORRECT in one of the two places. Everyone seems to admit that the price on the form was correct, only that it was in USD instead of the CDN that the buyer actually handed over. BFD. Like I said, if that's the problem, then EVERY RETURNING U.S. CITIZEN is lying on their customs forms when they report prices in USD for things they bought in euros or reals or yen or whatever.
Fuck man, just read the goddamn article. It takes about 5 minutes. Here, let me help:
Let me help you.
The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
So they changed the currency from CDN to USD, and THE PRICE WAS CORRECT. So what if they listed the price in USD?
They didn't change the form.
It was correct. Why should they?
I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of your post,
What you quoted covers it pretty well, and I covered it pretty well the first time. They converted the price right off the invoice from CDN to USD, the owner refused to sign the form with the correct data, his boat was confiscated. He claims the form lied. The story says it was correct. You have nothing to contradict that, so let's just stop reading there.
Surely the free-market will find some private enterprise replacement for publicly funded highways without raising a new tax!
First of all, this isn't a new tax. It's a new method of calculating who pays what for an old tax.
Second, even if you drive exclusively on private roads, your car will need to be tracked so the government can figure out how much road tax you need to pay.
The issue is not which roads you drive on, it's that you must be tracked for any time/location based road use taxes to be applied. And it isn't a question of if they will be applied, only how.
Highly unlikely given the likelihood of GPS-for-road-tax coming not too far down the line.
This. +2 mod. GPS based road taxes are not an "if" proposition, they are a "when". And electric vehicles will be the final nail in the coffin, since they pay no road taxes based on gasoline usage. The governments will not let that go forever. They're already whining because government-mandated fuel efficiencies are reducing the amount of gas tax revenue, when gas usage drops to zero for a lot of cars they'll have to react.
In Oregon, they've already done studies and tests. I know one of the engineers involved. When I told her that this was going to result in tracking of every vehicle everywhere, she denied it. Of course, there was no explanation of how they would implement time and location based taxation (drive on a major highway at rush-hour taxed more than driving a back-road at midnight, and driving on private property not taxed at all) without keeping track of where and when each vehicle was driven.
That's not what the form said. Assume he paid $10k CDN for it. The form said he paid $10k USD for it, which is not correct.
From the summary, which is probably taken verbatim from the article: "The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars." Emphasis mine.
So, the summary says the form was correct. You claim it was wrong. What is your source?
They could have either changed the currency to CDN, or changed the amount to USD.
According to the summary, they did the latter. They changed the CDN to USD. And the price they came up with WAS CORRECT.
So, I guess the lie comes because he was asked to say he paid in USD when he really paid in the equivalent amount of CDN? If that's true, then EVERY RETURNING US CITIZEN is being asked to lie when they fill out their customs forms. They ask for a listing of what items you are bringing back and their value in USD. I typically don't pay for anything outside the US in USD, so I guess I'm lying when I convert the euros I spent on something into USD, right? I should fill out the form with USD, and then refuse to sign it because I would be lying? Is that how YOU deal with ICE when YOU reenter the US? Expect your shit to be confiscated, then.
Why would he refuse to sign a form that was correct?
I don't know, but the summary says he did. Maybe he's an attention whore, or just has a vendetta against ICE and thinks this is a fun way of making them look bad.
Could you explain why there'd be any such problem requiring non-anonymous bearing of arms?
1. The right to privacy. Why is it any of your business what rights I'm exercising and in what manner?
2. The right to life, liberty, etc. Publishing a list of gun owners is publishing a list of prime targets for criminals who want to go steal guns.
3. Freedom from zealot hypocrisy. If requiring the use of real names in the exercise of free speech is an infringement of that speech, then requiring the use of real names in the exercise of second amendment rights is an infringement of those rights. You can't have it both ways. Either real names create a limitation that is unconstitutional or they don't.
There are already a lot more restrictions on gun use than speech, and they largely don't seem to hinder owning and bearing arms.
Please, honesty is a virtue. Of course registrations and background checks are infringing that right. There are people, even many of them here, who refuse to put themselves on government lists just so they can exercise a basic right. Why don't they speak openly on the subject? For the same reason they don't voluntarily get themselves added to the government lists of gun owners.
(There are exceptions; given the use of the word "militia"
The word "militia" was in an explanatory clause, not a regulatory one. The second amendment does not say "the right of people who join militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not even close.
Going to number three, does it matter whether my name is known or not when the military might want to quarter troops in my house? Why do you think it should apply to the second?
Because it doesn't apply to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,... If the founders had wanted a difference, they would have written it differently. Using your argument that "real names don't create an infringment", then let's talk about quartering troops in your house. Would you accept a rule from the federal government that to keep the military from quartering troops in your house you must register in advance using your real name and address, otherwise they'll quarter troops in your house next week? Of course not. Such a "real name" rule would be patently absurd. It's a RIGHT not to have troops kept in your house, something you don't have to register or apply for.
I know some gun enthusiasts, and they seem to have no qualms about being known as such.
You know some gun enthusiasts so you can speak as to the nature of all gun enthusiasts. I can bet there are people who are reading this today that would own a gun if they didn't have to hand their name over to the federal or local government just so they could exercise that right. I can speak with authority for one of them -- I hesitated for a very long time before breaking down and going through the process. I currently think it was a mistake, so had I thought twice I would still be gun-less. Now, you can claim all you want that my right to bear arms is not being infringed, but I know for a fact that you are wrong. The difference between our positions is that for you to be right you need to speak for all potential gun owners. For me to be right, I need speak for only one, and I am doing at least that much.
They didn't present him with an accurate form to sign.
Since when is it inaccurate (or "a lie" as it is being reported) to report the sale price of an object bought in Canada IN CANADIAN DOLLARS? If you paid 10 CDN for something and said "I paid 10 CDN for it", are you lying? Of course not.
He refused to sign a form that was accurate, which led to the confiscation of the boat. That's what happens when you refuse to sign customs forms. That's what happens when ANYONE refuses to sign customs forms.
I guess you're too young to remember how Microsoft "abused its monopoly" by bundling Internet Explorer with the OS for free.
Nobody seems to remember the even worse abuse, where they required vendors to sell EVERY computer with a copy of a Microsoft OS if they wanted to sell ANY system with a copy. I lost count of the number of new computers I bought where the first step was to format the disk and then install Linux. That wasted a lot of the taxpayer's money, since I was buying each one off of a federal research grant.
Nothing stops a user from buying a DRM free ebook and using it on their reader.
As long as someone is selling that book in DRM-free format, that is. I'm going through this issue now with the publisher of three magazines I read on a regular basis, one of which I've been a print subscriber for thirty years or more. The only DRM-free (and multi-format, to boot) vendor (Fictionwise) stopped selling. Every other source has DRM (or the equivalent, being tied to a proprietary reader program).
I complained loudly to the publisher and got ignored at first, and then I was told that this issue was being examined and they wanted to move away from the retailers they were using. The confusing part was that she said that "we won't do that DRM again". I don't know if she meant "we will be DRM-free when we arrange future retailers", or if she was referring to the DRM-free versions they used to provide to Fictionwise not happening again.
Either way, Calibre and epub is your friend, except when the publishers start mangling the formats so you get black and white cover images and say essentially "read these articles in this order".
There is no constitutional clause that says "freedom of speech, after you provide your legal name and address". It infringes on freedom of speech,
Just wondering if you apply the same reasoning to the second amendment? Background checks/registration is a requirement to provide legal name and address...
And next time you are standing in line at the Post Office, think about how much better it is than standing in line at the UPS Store. You'll have LOTS of time to think about it.
I'll think about it the next time I have to drive ten miles to the nearest UPS office to pick up an envelope, compared to five blocks downtown to the post office.
That's two out of twelve.
You got only twelve pieces of mail during an entire year? You mean they lost/mangled two pieces of mail out of hundreds or thousands they delivered normally. That's pretty good odds, and much different than "2 out of 12".
If you wanted to paint a really dim picture of USPS using statistics, you should have said "they mangled EVERY paycheck I got during the month of April..., that's 100%".
You're describing a simple transformer type of power supply.
I described a simple linear power supply and compared it to a modern switching supply in what you replied to. Are you just noticing that?
Those older, linear supplies are NOT "switchers" just because they have switches on them to change input voltage. The switch marked "120/240" actually changes the input to the transformer, as I described, and has nothing to do with "power factor". Newer switching supplies might have such a switch, but not for the same reason, and they aren't the same as the old supplies I was talking about. (New/Old, one of these things is not like the other...)
There are plenty of examples of switching supplies with a 120/240 switch.
Yes, as I said, newer supplies may have such a switch, but the old supplies don't suddenly change into "switchers" because they had a switch marked the same way.
Then shouldn't they be registered with the FCC, the government body that deals with testing and compliance of noninterference,
They are, as part of the certification process that makes it legal to import and or sell them. Look carefully, there will be an FCC id number on your booster somewhere.
rather than with a provider that will probably force you to use some kind of new plan that costs extra?
The provider holds the license to the spectrum you are transmitting in.
On the contrary - I'm betting that the only reason anybody needed to think about making it illegal is that someone *did* it.
Many of the useful changes to the FAA regulations come about because not only "someone did it", but "someone died when someone did it". Procedures get changed because someone flew into a mountain, or two aircraft ran into each other on the runway (runway incursion rules and readback procedures, for example.) Medical and duty day rules changed because too many pilots fell asleep while flying (one notable instance: a pilot in Hawaii flew 20 minutes out to sea because he was asleep when he passed over the right airport.)
Now, if the Alaska law is based on that concept, then it was probably already against the federal laws about dropping objects out of airplanes.
the old supplies with the 110/220 selector are switchers too -
No, old power supplies with a switch are not switchers. The switches on old supplies actually changed the selection of the primary on the transformer. Most of them had two primary windings. Wired in parallel, they handled 240V. Wired in series, 120V. That produced the right output from the secondary so you'd not over-voltage the regulators or dissipate excessive power dropping too high a voltage. If you didn't care about the dissipation, you could have a linear supply that ran on 120 or 240 without caring, you'd just have to make sure you rated all the components to handle the higher voltage.
Newer supplies that are switchers may still have a switch, but it really shouldn't be necessary in a well designed supply.
But flying weaponized drones over US air-space, outside of military bases, is unconstitutional, unless marshal law is declared.
I see nothing in the US Constitution that says that. Perhaps you are thinking of Libya or some other country? Citation required.
I'd then question why a "militarized drone" would be different than a "militarized jet fighter", or how the Founders would have known they needed to differentiate between the two when they wrote the Constitution. And yes, "militarized jet fighters" fly over US airspace outside of military bases ALL THE TIME. And I don't think marshal law has been declared, has it?
But that is just the opinion of a fol who believes the constitution means something...
Some kid out of high school might be the best welder, but is not likely to get the job over someone who can present some kind of fancy school certificate.
Not sure which university teaches welding, but I'd stay away from that one if you want a real education.
It is not likely that there are many employers who will take each applicant and have them actually weld something,
Well, better that than asking for a college transcript and thinking that the English major has a better chance of working out than the high-school vo-tech graduate as a welder.
They have a short in the box that supplies power to the unit in their shop dropping 240v into the machine at random.
Most modern, well designed power supplies can handle anything from 95V through 250V because that is what they could expect on their input depending on where in the world they are used.
That's because they are switching power supplies, and instead of using a simple transformer to create the right internal voltage that is then rectified and provided to the powered equipment, they switch the incoming current to maintain the right voltage on the output.
Now, I'd like to know where this "120/240V" stuff regarding the Dreamliner is coming from. TFA says nothing more than the summary about what was miswired. I'd suspect it wasn't a voltage issue when they say "a simple valve" would fix it (valve? Are they really using ancient tube-based circuits?). I'd suspect the problem is a current path that applies APU power to the batteries when it should not be. But, lacking any real description, it's a guess.
Any college that has lowered its entrance standards so far that remedial education is even on the table has turned itself into a diploma mill that will shortly be known as worthless.
Or it is a state university where the people who pay the taxes kinda expect that their kids can go and get a degree, even if their kids are unmotivated lunks who do nothing but consume oxygen and fritos. And beer.
Funny how people kinda think that a college degree is now a right of some kind. So much so that Oregon just passed a law saying that illegal immigrants can attend state schools at in-state tuition rates. One interesting argument was that allowing them to attend at lower rates would help build an educated, motivated workforce for the future. This ignores the one tiny detail that illegal immigrants can't be employed to create that workforce.
Slashdot Mirror
The Second Amendment provides for a "well regulated" militia.
No, the second amendment provides for the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It does not limit that right to militia members, even though it could easily have done so by actually saying just that.
Once this is government mandated, you will have to carry this with you - just like having plates, registration and proof of insurance. If they stop you, and you don't have it, they will fine/impound you.
What's more likely is a dual-tax system until the old cars die and are replaced by cars with mandatory GPS tracking units. When you go to the pump, if your car doesn't have a GPS unit, you pay the normal road use taxes in the fuel charges. If you have a GPS, your data is uploaded and your tax is computed and added to a tax-less fuel price. That's what the Oregon DOT was floating as the means of changeover.
In fact, I can even imagine that the tax for non-GPS users goes up to the point that the price of fuel for them becomes in incentive to install the tracking device, just like in a few years the price for car insurance will go up for people who aren't installing the "snapshot" devices to the point that most people will do it. Just like health insurance companies that used to offer a small discount to people who do "healthy" things are now charging a surcharge to people who don't "voluntarily" participate in those "healthy things" programs. Like Oregon's PEBB insurance programs, where people who don't agree to stop smoking pay a surcharge, or people who don't "volunteer" to participate in the "health engagement model" (HEM) pay more. Agree to tell them your waist size and take two online health management courses and you pay less than those who don't.
What's funny about that latter program is that the courses are naturally privacy invasive. "Tell us about your XYZ condition..." they say. There is a "no" option. "Ok, we can't teach you much about this because you aren't willing to share. Bye...". But you still get credit for the course. Makes taking the courses really easy, but almost useless. Almost as useless as the one I did answer stuff regarding depression, the suggestions from which could be summed up as "be happier, do happier things". Thanks. Didn't think of that.
but of course, they're already paying those taxes when they buy fuel for the vehicles. Big whoop.
No, they're not. They may pay at the pump, but they get it back.
You're not reading that correctly. Not a single place in the fucking article does he say "the price was correct".
It says that in the summary, which both you and I quoted. If it wasn't correct in the summary, perhaps that should have been what you said instead of simply repeating it with an emphasis on an irrelevant part. I emphasized the part about it being correct, but instead of saying it wasn't, you emphasized the units, as if that mattered. It's like saying that it would be a lie to buy a 4mm screw but say I bought a 0.004m screw. The statement is correct ("the price was correct") but the units are different. So what if the units are different? Since you didn't contest the part about the price being correct, I assumed it was.
They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. They DID NOT CONVERT IT.
Then they did not copy the price. The price includes units. Saying they copied the price but changed the currency to USD implies that they CONVERTED IT. But here you're telling me they copied the price again, when the truth apparently is they didn't. Writing '4mm' and '4m' is not copying the size of the screw, it's changing the size of the screw. Nobody I know would call one a copy of the other. Everyone I know would consider it to be copying the measurement if they wrote '0.004m' in place of '4mm'. Maybe it's because I know that the units are a mandatory part of every measurement and some people think all that matters is the digits.
No they goddamn didn't. They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. I feel like I'm arguing with a brick. This is not fucking rocket surgery.
I'm sorry that you feel the need for profanity instead of simply pointing out that the summary was incorrect the first time. It's not rocket surgery to say "if I quote something I know is wrong, I'll point out that it is wrong", either. What would you call it when you argue with someone who repeatedly quotes things that he knows are untrue and says nothing about them being untrue, despite multiple chances?
Why not just use the odometer?
Driver A drives mostly to and from work, using major roads during rush hours, helping stress the road system and create a demand for increased capacity.
Driver B drives mostly around the farm, but goes into town to pick up things from time to time. He uses mostly private roads, or small country roads that are lightly used at most.
They both drive the same number of miles, but one of them puts much more of a demand upon the road system and costs more to support. How will this difference "come out in the wash"? Consider that driver B already files a farm use exemption so he gets a lot of his gas tax money back, but under a flat "use the odometer" option he pays the same amount as Driver A. His taxes go way up, his road usage does not.
Tax cars based on the number of miles driven. Yes, some of your miles will be spent outside your state,
Or on private roads/farms. Some vehicles almost never leave a farm, but they rack up miles of use anyway.
How do you determine miles driven? Mandatory vehicle inspections? Sure.
then if another state near you does GPS, in the best case, you'll get extra cash when their drivers cross the line,
Where do you come up with this whopper from? You expect other states to collect road taxes on your state's behalf? They get to spend the money doing the collection just to hand money over to your state? Sure. Just like sales taxes someone pays in another state are tallied up and sent to the state of residence... not.
And if the vehicle is a hybrid, you could allow drivers to submit gas station receipts from other states to buy down the miles based on the fact that they already paid a gas tax in another state.
Thus creating a paperwork nightmare for both the consumer and the government. Also a giant loophole for anyone who lives near a border. They cross the border every time to fill up, but they spend most of their miles on their home state roads.
Such a solution is by far the most sane, as it has minimal impact on gasoline-based driving, while creating a much simpler, less invasive, and more easily managed scheme for electric-based driving.
Really? You think having people keep track of paper receipts and filing extra paperwork, along with mandatory visual inspection of every vehicle's milage, is simpler and more easily managed than a simple device in every car that is pinged by a radio system to report time/location data logged by a computer? The initial concept in Oregon was that this data would be uploaded every time you stopped to buy gas. All-electric vehicles need to recharge, so having an upload at each recharge is their answer.
Plus the advantage that GPS tracking allows use of the road tax as a social engineering tool, coercing people to drive during off-peak hours or non-main routes. That saves money by not having to expand infrastructure to deal with peak loads and makes people feel good about "being green" (and we all know that feeling good about being green is much more important than really being green...).
The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars.
The only reason the currency matters is because it was on a US customs form where prices are supposed to be in USD. It doesn't matter if he paid in CDN and the form showed USD, the important clause there is "the price was correct". If they hadn't converted correctly then the price would not be correct. Since the price was correct, the form wasn't a lie.
If you're trying to parse that statement as the price was correct but the units were wrong, then you have this problem: a price includes the "units of measure". If you say "the price of the boat was 10,000", you're not making a complete statement. "10,000" what? If you say in one place that the price was 10,000CDN and in another 10,000USD, then the PRICE IS NOT CORRECT in one of the two places. Everyone seems to admit that the price on the form was correct, only that it was in USD instead of the CDN that the buyer actually handed over. BFD. Like I said, if that's the problem, then EVERY RETURNING U.S. CITIZEN is lying on their customs forms when they report prices in USD for things they bought in euros or reals or yen or whatever.
Fuck man, just read the goddamn article. It takes about 5 minutes. Here, let me help:
Let me help you.
So they changed the currency from CDN to USD, and THE PRICE WAS CORRECT. So what if they listed the price in USD?
They didn't change the form.
It was correct. Why should they?
I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of your post,
What you quoted covers it pretty well, and I covered it pretty well the first time. They converted the price right off the invoice from CDN to USD, the owner refused to sign the form with the correct data, his boat was confiscated. He claims the form lied. The story says it was correct. You have nothing to contradict that, so let's just stop reading there.
Surely the free-market will find some private enterprise replacement for publicly funded highways without raising a new tax!
First of all, this isn't a new tax. It's a new method of calculating who pays what for an old tax.
Second, even if you drive exclusively on private roads, your car will need to be tracked so the government can figure out how much road tax you need to pay.
The issue is not which roads you drive on, it's that you must be tracked for any time/location based road use taxes to be applied. And it isn't a question of if they will be applied, only how.
Highly unlikely given the likelihood of GPS-for-road-tax coming not too far down the line.
This. +2 mod. GPS based road taxes are not an "if" proposition, they are a "when". And electric vehicles will be the final nail in the coffin, since they pay no road taxes based on gasoline usage. The governments will not let that go forever. They're already whining because government-mandated fuel efficiencies are reducing the amount of gas tax revenue, when gas usage drops to zero for a lot of cars they'll have to react.
In Oregon, they've already done studies and tests. I know one of the engineers involved. When I told her that this was going to result in tracking of every vehicle everywhere, she denied it. Of course, there was no explanation of how they would implement time and location based taxation (drive on a major highway at rush-hour taxed more than driving a back-road at midnight, and driving on private property not taxed at all) without keeping track of where and when each vehicle was driven.
That's not what the form said. Assume he paid $10k CDN for it. The form said he paid $10k USD for it, which is not correct.
From the summary, which is probably taken verbatim from the article: "The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars." Emphasis mine.
So, the summary says the form was correct. You claim it was wrong. What is your source?
They could have either changed the currency to CDN, or changed the amount to USD.
According to the summary, they did the latter. They changed the CDN to USD. And the price they came up with WAS CORRECT.
So, I guess the lie comes because he was asked to say he paid in USD when he really paid in the equivalent amount of CDN? If that's true, then EVERY RETURNING US CITIZEN is being asked to lie when they fill out their customs forms. They ask for a listing of what items you are bringing back and their value in USD. I typically don't pay for anything outside the US in USD, so I guess I'm lying when I convert the euros I spent on something into USD, right? I should fill out the form with USD, and then refuse to sign it because I would be lying? Is that how YOU deal with ICE when YOU reenter the US? Expect your shit to be confiscated, then.
Why would he refuse to sign a form that was correct?
I don't know, but the summary says he did. Maybe he's an attention whore, or just has a vendetta against ICE and thinks this is a fun way of making them look bad.
Could you explain why there'd be any such problem requiring non-anonymous bearing of arms?
1. The right to privacy. Why is it any of your business what rights I'm exercising and in what manner?
2. The right to life, liberty, etc. Publishing a list of gun owners is publishing a list of prime targets for criminals who want to go steal guns.
3. Freedom from zealot hypocrisy. If requiring the use of real names in the exercise of free speech is an infringement of that speech, then requiring the use of real names in the exercise of second amendment rights is an infringement of those rights. You can't have it both ways. Either real names create a limitation that is unconstitutional or they don't.
There are already a lot more restrictions on gun use than speech, and they largely don't seem to hinder owning and bearing arms.
Please, honesty is a virtue. Of course registrations and background checks are infringing that right. There are people, even many of them here, who refuse to put themselves on government lists just so they can exercise a basic right. Why don't they speak openly on the subject? For the same reason they don't voluntarily get themselves added to the government lists of gun owners.
(There are exceptions; given the use of the word "militia"
The word "militia" was in an explanatory clause, not a regulatory one. The second amendment does not say "the right of people who join militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not even close.
Going to number three, does it matter whether my name is known or not when the military might want to quarter troops in my house? Why do you think it should apply to the second?
Because it doesn't apply to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ... If the founders had wanted a difference, they would have written it differently. Using your argument that "real names don't create an infringment", then let's talk about quartering troops in your house. Would you accept a rule from the federal government that to keep the military from quartering troops in your house you must register in advance using your real name and address, otherwise they'll quarter troops in your house next week? Of course not. Such a "real name" rule would be patently absurd. It's a RIGHT not to have troops kept in your house, something you don't have to register or apply for.
I know some gun enthusiasts, and they seem to have no qualms about being known as such.
You know some gun enthusiasts so you can speak as to the nature of all gun enthusiasts. I can bet there are people who are reading this today that would own a gun if they didn't have to hand their name over to the federal or local government just so they could exercise that right. I can speak with authority for one of them -- I hesitated for a very long time before breaking down and going through the process. I currently think it was a mistake, so had I thought twice I would still be gun-less. Now, you can claim all you want that my right to bear arms is not being infringed, but I know for a fact that you are wrong. The difference between our positions is that for you to be right you need to speak for all potential gun owners. For me to be right, I need speak for only one, and I am doing at least that much.
They didn't present him with an accurate form to sign.
Since when is it inaccurate (or "a lie" as it is being reported) to report the sale price of an object bought in Canada IN CANADIAN DOLLARS? If you paid 10 CDN for something and said "I paid 10 CDN for it", are you lying? Of course not.
He refused to sign a form that was accurate, which led to the confiscation of the boat. That's what happens when you refuse to sign customs forms. That's what happens when ANYONE refuses to sign customs forms.
Also, the pricing of an ebook can be just above zero and still cover marginal production costs.
Unfortunately, "marginal production costs" are not the only costs being recovered by the sales price.
I guess you're too young to remember how Microsoft "abused its monopoly" by bundling Internet Explorer with the OS for free.
Nobody seems to remember the even worse abuse, where they required vendors to sell EVERY computer with a copy of a Microsoft OS if they wanted to sell ANY system with a copy. I lost count of the number of new computers I bought where the first step was to format the disk and then install Linux. That wasted a lot of the taxpayer's money, since I was buying each one off of a federal research grant.
Nothing stops a user from buying a DRM free ebook and using it on their reader.
As long as someone is selling that book in DRM-free format, that is. I'm going through this issue now with the publisher of three magazines I read on a regular basis, one of which I've been a print subscriber for thirty years or more. The only DRM-free (and multi-format, to boot) vendor (Fictionwise) stopped selling. Every other source has DRM (or the equivalent, being tied to a proprietary reader program).
I complained loudly to the publisher and got ignored at first, and then I was told that this issue was being examined and they wanted to move away from the retailers they were using. The confusing part was that she said that "we won't do that DRM again". I don't know if she meant "we will be DRM-free when we arrange future retailers", or if she was referring to the DRM-free versions they used to provide to Fictionwise not happening again.
Either way, Calibre and epub is your friend, except when the publishers start mangling the formats so you get black and white cover images and say essentially "read these articles in this order".
There is no constitutional clause that says "freedom of speech, after you provide your legal name and address". It infringes on freedom of speech,
Just wondering if you apply the same reasoning to the second amendment? Background checks/registration is a requirement to provide legal name and address...
And next time you are standing in line at the Post Office, think about how much better it is than standing in line at the UPS Store. You'll have LOTS of time to think about it.
I'll think about it the next time I have to drive ten miles to the nearest UPS office to pick up an envelope, compared to five blocks downtown to the post office.
That's two out of twelve.
You got only twelve pieces of mail during an entire year? You mean they lost/mangled two pieces of mail out of hundreds or thousands they delivered normally. That's pretty good odds, and much different than "2 out of 12".
If you wanted to paint a really dim picture of USPS using statistics, you should have said "they mangled EVERY paycheck I got during the month of April..., that's 100%".
You're describing a simple transformer type of power supply.
I described a simple linear power supply and compared it to a modern switching supply in what you replied to. Are you just noticing that?
Those older, linear supplies are NOT "switchers" just because they have switches on them to change input voltage. The switch marked "120/240" actually changes the input to the transformer, as I described, and has nothing to do with "power factor". Newer switching supplies might have such a switch, but not for the same reason, and they aren't the same as the old supplies I was talking about. (New/Old, one of these things is not like the other...)
There are plenty of examples of switching supplies with a 120/240 switch.
Yes, as I said, newer supplies may have such a switch, but the old supplies don't suddenly change into "switchers" because they had a switch marked the same way.
Then shouldn't they be registered with the FCC, the government body that deals with testing and compliance of noninterference,
They are, as part of the certification process that makes it legal to import and or sell them. Look carefully, there will be an FCC id number on your booster somewhere.
rather than with a provider that will probably force you to use some kind of new plan that costs extra?
The provider holds the license to the spectrum you are transmitting in.
On the contrary - I'm betting that the only reason anybody needed to think about making it illegal is that someone *did* it.
Many of the useful changes to the FAA regulations come about because not only "someone did it", but "someone died when someone did it". Procedures get changed because someone flew into a mountain, or two aircraft ran into each other on the runway (runway incursion rules and readback procedures, for example.) Medical and duty day rules changed because too many pilots fell asleep while flying (one notable instance: a pilot in Hawaii flew 20 minutes out to sea because he was asleep when he passed over the right airport.)
Now, if the Alaska law is based on that concept, then it was probably already against the federal laws about dropping objects out of airplanes.
the old supplies with the 110/220 selector are switchers too -
No, old power supplies with a switch are not switchers. The switches on old supplies actually changed the selection of the primary on the transformer. Most of them had two primary windings. Wired in parallel, they handled 240V. Wired in series, 120V. That produced the right output from the secondary so you'd not over-voltage the regulators or dissipate excessive power dropping too high a voltage. If you didn't care about the dissipation, you could have a linear supply that ran on 120 or 240 without caring, you'd just have to make sure you rated all the components to handle the higher voltage.
Newer supplies that are switchers may still have a switch, but it really shouldn't be necessary in a well designed supply.
But flying weaponized drones over US air-space, outside of military bases, is unconstitutional, unless marshal law is declared.
I see nothing in the US Constitution that says that. Perhaps you are thinking of Libya or some other country? Citation required.
I'd then question why a "militarized drone" would be different than a "militarized jet fighter", or how the Founders would have known they needed to differentiate between the two when they wrote the Constitution. And yes, "militarized jet fighters" fly over US airspace outside of military bases ALL THE TIME. And I don't think marshal law has been declared, has it?
But that is just the opinion of a fol who believes the constitution means something...
Something more than it actually means, I think.
Some kid out of high school might be the best welder, but is not likely to get the job over someone who can present some kind of fancy school certificate.
Not sure which university teaches welding, but I'd stay away from that one if you want a real education.
It is not likely that there are many employers who will take each applicant and have them actually weld something,
Well, better that than asking for a college transcript and thinking that the English major has a better chance of working out than the high-school vo-tech graduate as a welder.
They have a short in the box that supplies power to the unit in their shop dropping 240v into the machine at random.
Most modern, well designed power supplies can handle anything from 95V through 250V because that is what they could expect on their input depending on where in the world they are used.
That's because they are switching power supplies, and instead of using a simple transformer to create the right internal voltage that is then rectified and provided to the powered equipment, they switch the incoming current to maintain the right voltage on the output.
Now, I'd like to know where this "120/240V" stuff regarding the Dreamliner is coming from. TFA says nothing more than the summary about what was miswired. I'd suspect it wasn't a voltage issue when they say "a simple valve" would fix it (valve? Are they really using ancient tube-based circuits?). I'd suspect the problem is a current path that applies APU power to the batteries when it should not be. But, lacking any real description, it's a guess.
Any college that has lowered its entrance standards so far that remedial education is even on the table has turned itself into a diploma mill that will shortly be known as worthless.
Or it is a state university where the people who pay the taxes kinda expect that their kids can go and get a degree, even if their kids are unmotivated lunks who do nothing but consume oxygen and fritos. And beer.
Funny how people kinda think that a college degree is now a right of some kind. So much so that Oregon just passed a law saying that illegal immigrants can attend state schools at in-state tuition rates. One interesting argument was that allowing them to attend at lower rates would help build an educated, motivated workforce for the future. This ignores the one tiny detail that illegal immigrants can't be employed to create that workforce.